"In specific cases, we think by applying mental rules, which are similar to rules in computer programs. In most of the cases, however, we reason by constructing, inspecting, and manipulating mental models. These models and the processes that manipulate them are the basis of our competence to reason. In general, it is believed that humans have the competence to perform such inferences error-free. Errors do occur, however, because reasoning performance is limited by capacities of the cognitive system, misunderstanding of the premises, ambiguity of problems, and motivational factors. Moreover, background knowledge can significantly influence our reasoning performance. This influence can either be facilitation or an impedance of the reasoning process." (Carsten Held et al, "Mental Models and the Mind", 2006)
"Mental models abide by the principle of parsimony: They represent only possibilities compatible with the premises, and they represent clauses in the premises only when they hold in a possibility. Fully explicit models represent clauses when they do not hold too. The advantage of mental models over fully explicit models is that they contain less information, and so they are easier to work with. But they can lead reasoners astray. The occurrence of these systematic and compelling fallacies is shocking. The model theory predicts them, and they are a 'litmus' test for mental models, because no other current theory predicts them. They have so far resisted explanation by theories of reasoning based on formal rules of inference, because these theories rely on valid rules." (Philip N Johnson-Laird, Mental Models, Sentential Reasoning, and Illusory Inferences, [in "Mental Models and the Mind"], 2006)
"People don’t need to know all the details of how a complex mechanism actually works in order to use it, so they create a cognitive shorthand for explaining it, one that is powerful enough to cover their interactions with it, but that doesn’t necessarily reflect its actual inner mechanics. […] In the digital world, however, the differences between a user’s mental model and the implementation model are often quite distinct. The discrepancy between implementation and mental models is particularly stark in the case of software applications, where the complexity of implementation can make it nearly impossible for the user to see the mechanistic connections between his actions and the program’s reactions." (Alan Cooper et al, "About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design", 2007)
"The closer the represented model comes to the user’s mental model, the easier he will find the program to use and to understand. Generally, offering a represented model that follows the implementation model too closely significantly reduces the user’s ability to learn and use the program, assuming (as is almost always the case) that the user’s mental model of his tasks differs from the implementation model of the software." (Alan Cooper et al, "About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design", 2007)
"Gaining awareness about how the system is built up and how it works can also help us to avoid solutions that only treat the symptoms of an underlying problem without curing the problem itself. System thinking is powerful because it helps us to see our own mental models and how these models color our perception of the world. In many cases, it is difficult for us to alter our mental models. There are always some beliefs or viewpoints that we are not willing to change, no matter what evidence is presented against it. This causes a certain resistance to new concepts. Problems can occur, however, when a rigid mental model stands in the way of a solution that might solve a problem. In such situations, adherence to mental models can be dangerous to the health of the organization." (Akhilesh Bajaj & Stanisław Wrycza, "Systems Analysis and Design for Advanced Modeling Methods: Best Practices", 2009)
"We all use mental models every day. Our minds do not contain real economic or social systems. Instead, they contain representations - models - of reality. We use these models in all aspects of decision-making. Being explicitly aware of our mental models can help us in understanding why we make the decisions we do and how we can improve our decision-making processes. If everyone’s mental models are brought to light in the context of an organization, we can begin to see where, how, and why the models diverge. This is the first step in building a shared understanding within an organization. As long as mental models remain hidden, they constitute an obstacle to building shared understanding." (Akhilesh Bajaj & Stanisław Wrycza, "Systems Analysis and Design for Advanced Modeling Methods: Best Practices", 2009)
"Each person has a different mental model and, therefore, potentially a different interpretation of the Facts. The danger comes when we start to assume that our interpretation of the Facts is the only interpretation and we believe that what we see and think is the Truth, and that there is only one Truth." (Robina Chatham & Brian Sutton, "Changing the IT Leader’s Mindset", 2010)
Our mental model governs what we see, how we think about things and how we act, but is this just an individual phenomenon, or can whole communities and professions share a common mental model, a shared view of reality? […] What is beyond doubt is that all professions have their own vocabularies, lexicons, tools and techniques. These models, techniques and ways of analysing things are not value-free; they represent a way of seeing the world. When we select and use them we are subconsciously buying into that way of thinking and, inevitably, we are also reinforcing our own mental model of cause and effect. We tend to expend significant effort in understanding the inner workings of a new tool or practice, but we give scant attention to the thought paradigm that underpins it. (Robina Chatham & Brian Sutton, "Changing the IT Leader’s Mindset", 2010)
"Our past (mental model) governs what we perceive (See) and how we make sense of it (Assess). This, in turn, prescribes our range of possible actions (Do), which leads to results (Get). We are therefore trapped into repeating well-understood, but possibly ineffective, patterns of behaviour and can Get sub-optimal results. The cycle is both self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing – we tend to apply the same assessment techniques to review what we get, thus further reinforcing our mental model and further limiting our ability to perceive the unusual or the remarkable." (Robina Chatham & Brian Sutton, "Changing the IT Leader’s Mindset", 2010)
"[…] our strong mental models tend to make us blind to certain possibilities, and therefore we unknowingly engage in biased listening. Whenever we interpret information, we subconsciously access three filters based upon how we feel about the content, the information source and situation (or context) in which we receive the information." (Robina Chatham & Brian Sutton, "Changing the IT Leader’s Mindset", 2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment